Why do people do character development!?!

I also love that every Iron Man movie closes with him saying I am Iron Man. Like in the Black Sabbath song.

Ok sorry, done derailing now!

 

There doesn't have to be a massive change in a character's personality but if you go through something in life it tends to change you for the better and often also for the worst. A novel is usually about something happening to the character, a journey they go on that is worth telling - those kinds of journeys tend to have a effect on people. Even if the event only takes place in one day. I went through a rather shocking, big event a month ago and it hasn't changed me in a large way. I still like the same things, the same people, but it's made me stronger and more aware of things that passed me by before. The growth of character change must match the journey they go through. I tend to write a list of positive and negative changes the journey causes and pick a few for my character to show.

 

I was shocked that billionaire Tony Stark didn't know what shawarma was.

 

I would argue that the entire story is nothing but a character progression arc. He starts in the City of Destruction, goes through trials that shape him and ultimately ends in the Celestial City because of the lessons he learned and his faithful devotion to God. I had a copy of this book with extremely fanciful Victorian-era illustrations as a kid so I spent quite a lot of time with it.

 

... what story? The title doesn't mention a story and we were last discussing Iron Man...

Oh... Pilgrim's Progress?

 

Yes. Pilgrims Progress. The OP listed it as a story without character development but I would disagree as the story is a tale about a character developing from a sinner bound for destruction to a Christian who survives a series of temptations and trials which ultimately make him stronger in his resolve. The story closes out as he achieves his reward for faith and is accepted into the Celestial City.

 

They don't have to be negative or evil characters. For instance Sherlock Holmes, James Bond and Conan have the classic flat character arc, described in the K M Weiland blog I linked to earlier. Rather than the character needing to change, they already understand the truth that the rest of the society around them misunderstands. The society is laboring under the big lie, which is the source or result of the evil that must be defeated. This flat character arc is for 2 dimensional characters, not fully developed 3 dimensional ones, in genre fiction rather than literature, and they tend not to be the POV character of the story. It can be narrated by a friend or associate observing them (Watson), or written in 3rd person objective, not going inside the character's psychology (Conan, Bond). They stick to their guns, refuse to be swayed by the lies, even if their understanding of the Truth is only intuitive or gut-level at first. And they eventually make everyone else see the truth.

Yes, an evil or negative character can also have a flat or nonexistent arc (or a negative one), but that's a different thing.

Here's the link to that blog post again (because probably nobody will bother to scan back looking for it): How to Write a Flat Character Arc, Pt. 1: The First Act

Edit—I just realized, the flat-arc character often does have a small semi-arc near the beginning of their 1st story (they're often series characters) that turns them into the hero the series is going to be about, makes them decide to take on the ongoing quest. This would apply to the Marvel superheroes, with their origin stories being the pseudo-arc that made them take up the mantle of hero-ing. And the villains have their (negative) origin arcs too.

 

How are you differentiating between 2 & 3 dimensional characters?

 

3 dimensional means a fully developed character, found often in literature (which focuses on character more than plot). Though there's definitely genre fiction that develops characters beyond the flatter 2-dimensional level.

2 dimensional characters would be like James Bond, Clark Kent, Conan etc, while 3 dimensional are more real and at some level unknowable (like real people are). You find them in writers like Dickens I guess, or John Irving.

 

Maybe I've missed something, but this answer looks like it just begs the question as to what a "fully developed" characters is. How about this: What is it about Clark Kent that makes him a 2 dimensional character and not a 3 dimensional one?

 

I don't know of a formula to determine that. I can probably differentiate better in movies than books. Compare Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver with Popeye the Sailor.

 

Hmm. I wouldn't think any of the examples you've offered (including Popeye) are 2 dimensional characters, but I do agree with you that they generally have what you're calling a "flat character arc." I call that type of character an eternal character. My contention is I don't suspect character dimension or depth is the distinction between a normal character and an eternal character.

 

2 dimensional means flat, like a cardboard cutout, rather than like an actual person, who has the added dimension of depth as well as height and width. In writing it means a 2 dimensional character is one that's simply-drawn, with not a great deal of depth to it. It's defined by a just few simple traits. You;ll find them in everything from comic strips and cartoons on up into genre fiction.

A 3 dimensional character has more dimensions of depth, more like an actual person. You can't define a real person with just a handful of simple traits. There are layers of depth to them. They might be generally good-natured, until you piss them off, and especially if you mention certain topics that set them off. This is getting closer to a 3 dimensional character. But a truly 3 dimensional one has mystery and impenetrable elements to them, just like actual people do.

There may be better ways to explain it, but I don't know of any offhand. I'm sure Robert McKee does a good job in Story, which I've read several times, but I don't have an eidetic memory unfortunately.

 

What do you mean by an eternal character?

 

A character that can easily be featured in an infinite number of stories so long as certain reader expectations are met. They're often created with such a purpose in mind. James Bond. Batman. Solomon Kane. Jessica Fletcher. Etcetera.

 

Not only that, but he was almost killed by one of his own weapons, in the hands of terrorists, that his own company probably sold it to. And beyond even THAT, the piece of shrapnel in his chest, from one of his own missiles, was the reason he needed to create a miniature ARC reactor power supply, that he then powered the suit of armor with. And the armor was built from parts of Stark missiles. I mean, damn!! That's really powerful stuff, dreamed up by Stan so long ago, and still powerful today. A lot better than "Hey, my mom's name is Martha Too!"

Tony Stark earned his character arc, Batman totally didn't.

 

Basically, character development is when the character's values and/or attitude is affected in some notable way due to whatever happens to them throughout the story. This does not necessarily mean they have to change their minds about anything. That's just very common since characters tend to start out flawed, but then they grow because the learn something. We do this because it's engaging, gratifying, relatable and easy for the readers to understand. It's a efficient way to pull it off.

However, that development may be that the character has doubts about something they already felt or believed was true, then reaffirm their faith in that something and come out stronger. Learning that yourwere right all along is still learning something. Realizing that you don't have to change your ideals, that you're strong enough to stand by them even after being gravely tested, is still growth.